ROSCRT LOWCNSTCINJACK R, NCWMANHAROLO F. RCISMAVRICC AXCLRAOOAVIO R, TOL'LKATHLCCN H ~ SHCAJ, A. SOVKNIOHT~ JR.

C ORCOORY SARNCSMICHACL A. SAVSCROCSORAH L SCRNSTCINALSCRT V, CARR, JR,ROSCRT H, CVLRRCTCR 0, FLYNNWILLIAMJ, FRANKLINFRCOCRIC S, ORAY

LAW OFFICES

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD 8- TOLL

IO25 CONN CCTICUT AVKNUF~ N. W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

202 '62-8400

September 19, 1979

Michael C. Farrar, Esq., ChairmanAtomic Safety and Licensing

Appeal BoardU. S.. Nuclear Regulatory

CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Dr W Reed JohnsonAtomic Safety and Licensing

Appeal BoardU. S. Nuclear Regulatory

CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Richard S. Salzman, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing

Appeal BoardU. S. Nuclear Regulatory

CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Xn the Matter ofFLORXDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2)Docket No. 50.-389

Dear Members of the Board:

Since it, last filed, prepared testimony on June 22, 1979,Florida Power S Light Company has conducted studies of the1980 Florida to Georgia tie and of different electrical con-figurations between the St. Lucie Plant and the FPL grid.Summaries of these studies were made available to Mr. Edward J.Fowlkes of FERC and to the NRC Staff. Copies of these sum-maries are herewith provided for your information. Theyconsist of the following:

1) Attachment A presents the results of a summaryevaluation of the 1980 230KV tie between FloridaPower 6 Light Company and Georgia Power Company.The response of the grid to loss of generationwas investigated for the years 1980 and 1983.

t91018p ~~z

LOY/ENSTEI¹ LEE~ 4A¹ REISE AX D 8c TOLL '0

Members of the BoardSeptember 19, 1979Page Two

2) Attachment B is a summary evaluation of the per-formance of various electrical configurationsbetween St. Lucie Plant and the FPL gri'd. The1983 system configuration was chosen becauseit is the year in which the second unit atSt. Lucie is scheduled to go into Service.

Sincerely,

Harold F. ReisCounsel for Florida Power 6

Light Company

HFR:sgb

Enclosures

cc: See Attached Certificate of Service

~ k

0Attachment A

TRANSIENT STABILITY EVALUATION OF

THE IMPACT OF. THE NEW 230 KV TIE

BE%WEEN FPGL AND GEORGIA POWER CO ~

This is an analysis of the impact of the new 230 kV tiebetween Florida Power & Light Company and Georgia Power Company.

The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the relative improve-

ment in system transient response following loss of generation

in South Florida. System configurations for 1980, when the tie

goes in service, and 1983,'when St. Lucie g2 goes in service,

were analyzed.

Two basic assumptions are made in this study:

1. All systems are at their peak summer loading conditions.e

2. There is no scheduled interchange between Pen'nsularFlor'ida and Georgia Power Company.

Given the above assumptions, the following ge'"..e=ation losses,

in roughly 200 megawatt increments, were simulated with the new

tie in and out of service:

Units Lost K0 Loss

1. St. Lucre "r.1

2. St. Lucie "-.'.1

Pt. Everglades g2

777

981

3. S t. Lucie ~ 1Turkey Pt. Sl

1144

St. Lucie glPt. Everglades ~2Turkey Pt. ~1

1348

System response was observed to detect the beginning of

relay actions and breaker operations that sr'.'ll isolate Peninsular

Florida from the Georgia system. The follocring is a summary of

the simulations and the observed system responses at the end ofth- 10 second simulations.

1980 Summer Peak

System Res onse

Gener'ationLoss (biPT)

With Tie inService

Tie Hot inService

777 None None

981 None Separationbegins at8.0 seconds

1144 None Separationbegins at6.2 seconds

1983 Sunder Peak

S stem Response

GenerationLoss (Ni 1)

With Tie inService

Tie Not inService

777 Hone

None

None

Separationbegins at4. 5 seconds

1 14$ None Separationbegins at3.2 seconds

1348 Separationbegins at3.87 seconds

Previous studies have indicated that voltage conditions

in the vicinity of Kingsland are sensitive to the status of

Plant llc Nanus and may, therefore, affect the timing at which

the relays would initiate breaker operations.

Also, to be noted, is the fact that the 1983 case has the

proposed model of the out-of-step tripping scheme at the Fort

Nhite s tation of Florida Power Cox'poration, whereas the 19 80

case models the standard distance relays. This will influence

the timing of separation between the Kingsland-Duval tie on the

east coast and the west coast ties between FPC and Georgia.

Recently, though, heavy purchases of coal power from Georgia

Power and Tallahassee by Florida Power Corporation, in order to

reduce their'il consumption, hive tended to stress evisting1979 connections between Georgia and northwest Florid . It isexpected that the new tie will help reduce the instances where

separation did occur for loss of the largest un't ir Florida under

heavy import conditions.

Attachment B

REVIEW"1 OF THE PZRFORi~lANCE

OF VARIOUS ELECTRICAL CONFIGURATIONS

BETWEEN ST LUCIE PLANT AND THE FPL GRID

A steady-state, loadf low analysis of the pe formance o'

various electrical configurations between the St. Lucie Plant

and the FPL system was performed. The 1983 system configura-

tion was chosen because it is the year in which the second unitat St. Lucie is scheduled to go into service.

The purpose of the evaluation was to compare the performance

of the planned configuration to four (4) other possible confi-

gurations under identical outage conditions. The outages

simulated are: (1) Single outage of one circuit between

St. Lucie and lligway Substation; (2) Double outage of the circuitbetween Pratt s Whitney and Ranch simultaneously;;'th the. outage

of one circuit between St. Lucie and Midway. The five confi-

gurations are depicted in Figures 1 to 5.

The following is a summary of line loadings for the fiveconfigurations under the single- and double-outage scenarios.

~ Percent. of~Confi oration '1 (Pig. 1) L'ne Loaded

Single Outage

Double Outage

None

None

Con fi uration -",.' (Fig. 2)

Single Outage

Double Outage

blidway-St. Lucie 53

blidway-St. Lucie 63

112

104

Confi uration "'3 (Fig. 3)

Single Outage

Double Outage

Line Loaded

Midway-St. Lucie 53 .

~~liavay-S t. Lucie N 3

Percent ofPatina

113

103

Configuration 54 (Fig. 4)

Single Outage

Double OutageI

St. Lucie-Ranch 112

St. Lucie-Indiantown 105

Confi uration "'5 (Fig. 5)

Single Outage

Double Outage

St. Lucie-i~1idvay "-„2

St. Lucie-Midway —."2

148

147

The analysis shows that the planned configuration — three

lines between i~iidvay and St. Lucie — results in better load dis-

tribution and produces no overload under both single and double

outage conditions.

At. present, the total lenqth of transmission 1-'ne exposure

between St. Lucie and the system is approximately 35.0 miles.

Confiquration No. 2 vill increase the total line exposure to

88 miles. Configuration No. 3 vill increase the total to about

61 miles including a 26 mile, 500 kV, portion between .~!idway and

."~!artin Plant. Configuration No. 4 vill increase the line exposure

to approximately 118 miles while Confiauration No. 5 will increase

the total to approximately 86 mi3 es. Assuming a constant outaa

rate per 100 miles per year for 240 kV lines, it is evident that the

proaosed confiquration vill be more reliable. In fact, data collected

so far show that the three 'midway-St. Lucie lines have a better outage

record than the averaqe 240 kv line.

F j:GURE lllalabar 230 kV

l1idway 500 KV "'1icl~ray 230 KV t.Luci230

Sherman

End iantown

Pratt 697hitney

Nartin500 KV

Ranch

s/

Zaidytos~n Lines

FIGURE 2ilalabar 230 kV

IIidway 500 KV II dwayI

30 Kg St= Luc230

Sherman 0lndiantown

Pratt 6Whitney

Ranch

Hartin500 KV

Andytown Lines

FIGURE 3

llalabar 230 kV

Nidway500 kv Nidway 230 KV St. LQc

Sherman

Indian to<7n

500 kV

PrattWhitney

I~'Ranch

'/ VAndytown Lines

FIGURE 4

Malabar 230 kV

Midway 500KV 230 KV Midway St. Lucie

Sherman

Xndiantown

PrattWhitney

Martin500 KU

Ranch

Andytown Lines

FIGURE 5

l1alabar 230 kV

Hidssay 500 KV midway 230 KV Luci~

Sherman

Xndiantosrni

PrattWhitney

~1artin 500 EV'anch

f

Andyto~i:n Lines

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD-

In the Matter of: ))

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ))

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, )Unit 2) * )

Docket No. 50-389

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, txue and correct copies of the

foregoing letter dated. September 19, 1979, addressed to the

,Members of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board, and

the enclosures referred to therein, have been served this19th day of September, 1979, on the pexsons shown on the

attached service list by deposit, in the United States mail,

properly stamped and addressed.

September 19, 1979

HAROLD P. REIS

LOWENSTEIN ~ NEWMAN~ REIS fAXELRAD & TOLL

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (202) 862-8400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

In the Matter of: ))

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ))

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, )Unit 2) )

Docket No. 50-389

SERVICE LIST

Mr. C. R. StephensSupervisorDocketing and Service SectionOffice of the Secretary

of the CommissionNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Michael C. Farrar, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing

Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Dz. W. Reed Johnson-Atomic Safety & Licensing

Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Richard S. Salzman, EsquireAtomic Safety & Licensing

Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Alan S. Rosenthal, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing

Appeal PanelNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Edward Luton, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing

Board PanelNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Michael Glasez, EsquireAlternate ChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing Board1150 17th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036

Dr. Marvin M. MannTechnical AdvisorAtomic Safety & Licensing BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Dr. David L. HetrickProfessor of Nuclear Engineerin<University of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85721

Dr. Frank F. HooperChairmanResource Ecology ProgramSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48104

Mr. Angelo GiambussoDeputy Director for Reactor

ProjectsNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

William D. Paton, EsquireCounsel for NRC -Regulatory

StaffNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire1130 N.E. 86 StreetMiami, FL 33138

Norman A. Coll, EsquireSteel, Hector G DavisSoutheast First National

Bank BuildingMiami, FL 33131

William J. Olmstead, EsquireNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 205S5

Local Public Document RoomIndian River Junior College

Library3209 Virginia AvenueFt. Pierce, FL 334SO

James R. TourtellotteCounsel for NRC Regulatory

StaffNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 205S5